Subject: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification for draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-04.txt

From: "PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:03:50 +0200

Hi CCAMPer's,

Following the previous exchanges,
please find updated version of draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-04

Best regards to all,

Pierre

Subject: New Version Notification for draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-04.txt
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
To: "PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:57:06 +0200

A new version of I-D, draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Pierre Peloso and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo
Revision:	 04
Title:		 OSPF-TE Extensions for WSON-specific Network Element Constraints
Creation date:	 2011-07-11
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 36

Abstract:
   The original content of this internet draft was to propose some
   extentions to OSPF encoding in the context of Wavelength Switched
   Optical Networks, especially for internal constraints of optical
   network elements.  General description can be found in the framework
   document.

   This update of the document still aims at specifying the detailled
   structure of OSPF LSAs for WSONs.  Nevertheless, the proposed LSA
   layout slightly differs from the current content of the information
   model and encodings drafts.  As a result, the following sections
   highlight the differences between both approaches and summarize why
   the authors think these CCAMP&#39;s drafts would benefit from an update
   according to the proposed description.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:38:54 -0700

Hi Pierre and CCAMPers, the analysis in Appendix A of the Peloso draft 
is still incorrect and does not seem based on the current WSON WG 
encoding draft 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode/ 
published 3/14/2011, and continues to misrepresent the capabilities of 
the current WSON WG draft.  An example of how the situation mentioned in 
Appendix A of Peloso-04 can be efficiently encoded with the current WG 
was given in an e-mail to the CCAMP list on 7/5/2011.

Best Regards

Greg B.
On 7/11/2011 9:03 AM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: "PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:58:48 +0200

Hi Greg,

As you mention back your email of 7/5/2011, I take the opportunity to bring back our answer with comments and questions raised then to move towards a consensus (email of 7/8/2011).
These comments happened to be passed-by, let me then give this a second chance, please see attached the previously provided elements.

Regards,

- pierre

________________________________
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Greg Bernstein
Envoyé : lundi 18 juillet 2011 16:39
À : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification for draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-04.txt

Hi Pierre and CCAMPers, the analysis in Appendix A of the Peloso draft is still incorrect and does not seem based on the current WSON WG encoding draft http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode/ published 3/14/2011, and continues to misrepresent the capabilities of the current WSON WG draft.  An example of how the situation mentioned in Appendix A of Peloso-04 can be efficiently encoded with the current WG was given in an e-mail to the CCAMP list on 7/5/2011.

Best Regards

Greg B.

Hi CCAMPer's,

Best regards to all,

Pierre

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:47:16 -0700

Hi Pierre, your comments were well hidden in the end of your long 
e-mail.  It seems most except the issue about "stability across changes" 
and "lists versus ranges" are concerned with small accounting 
differences or still using your incorrect assumptions.
If there is such a need to use "lists" exclusively rather than "ranges" 
then a simple indirection via a "Group ID" (rather than messing up the 
pool concept) can be defined as follows:
Note containment hierarchy: Pools contain: Groups contain: Resource 
Blocks contain: resources.

Small extension to current Resource Block set field:
The information carried in a RB set field is defined by:
0123
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Action|E|C|Reserved|Length|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|RBIdentifier 1|RBIdentifier 2|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
:::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|RBIdentifier n-1|RBIdentifier n|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Action: 8 bits
0 - Inclusive List
Indicates that the field contains one or more RB elements that are 
included in the list.
2 - Inclusive Range
Indicates that the field contains a range of RBs.The object/TLV contains 
two WC elements. The first element indicates the start of the range. The 
second element indicates the end of the range. A value of zero indicates 
that there is no bound on the corresponding portion of the range.
3 -- Predefined Group Identifier
Indicates that the field contains a single resource block group 
identifier. This is potentially useful in cases where a very long 
resource block sets may be reused, such as in resource state update 
messages.

Then one needs a sub-TLV to  define the group IDs:

Resource Group Definition Sub-TLV

This sub-TLV allows one to define resource groups, i.e., sets of 
resources, and give them a group identifier.
0123
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved|Group ID#1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|RB Set Field for Group #1|
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reserved|Group ID#2|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|RB Set Field for Group #2|
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reserved|Group ID#N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|RB Set Field for Group #N|
::
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

This can solve all the issues with an implementation that exclusively 
uses the "list" mechanism and has an extremely large number of resource 
types.

Greg

On 7/20/2011 6:58 AM, PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE) wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> As you mention back your email of 7/5/2011, I take the opportunity to 
> bring back our answer with comments and questions raisedthen to move 
> towards a consensus (email of 7/8/2011).
> These comments happened to be passed-by, let me then give this a 
> second chance, please see attached the previously provided elements.
> Regards,
> - pierre
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *De :* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *De
>     la part de* Greg Bernstein
>     *Envoyé :* lundi 18 juillet 2011 16:39
>     *À :* [email-masked]
>     *Objet :* Re: [CCAMP] TR: New Version Notification for
>     draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo-04.txt
>
>     Hi Pierre and CCAMPers, the analysis in Appendix A of the Peloso
>     draft is still incorrect and does not seem based on the current
>     WSON WG encoding draft
>     published 3/14/2011, and continues to misrepresent the
>     capabilities of the current WSON WG draft.  An example of how the
>     situation mentioned in Appendix A of Peloso-04 can be efficiently
>     encoded with the current WG was given in an e-mail to the CCAMP
>     list on 7/5/2011.
>
>     Best Regards
>
>     Greg B.